JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Australia managed the mining boom so well we can’t afford cancer treatments

Our award-winning treasurer is forcing the nation to spend $8.9 billion on wind-turbines, to generate electricity which will be3- 4 times more expensive than coal powered electricity, probably won’t reduce CO2 at all, and which definitely won’t change the weather. Victoria’s windfarms have saved virtually no coal from being burnt. South Australian windfarms have saved 4% of their rated capacity in fossil fuels at a cost of $1,484 per ton.

MORE than $8.9 billion will be spent importing wind turbines because of the blowout in the Gillard government’s renewable energy target, providing few if any benefits to local industry, one of the nation’s biggest electricity generators warns.

The Australian can also reveal that a new Frontier Economics analysis commissioned by Macquarie Generation has found that the renewable energy target could slash the value of coal-fired power stations by between $11.3bn and $17.3bn – potentially having a greater impact than the carbon tax, which includes industry compensation.

In a new submission to the Climate Change Authority, Macquarie Generation said that 2500 wind turbines – costing $12.7bn – will be needed to comply with a scheme that is set to blow out the amount of renewable energy in the system to about 26 per cent by 2020, from the original 20 per cent.

Of this, more than 70 per cent of the cost would be to purchase overseas-manufactured turbines, the submission says.

Meanwhile, if we had just paid for coal-powered electricity, all the savings from this would pay for cancer treatments we apparently now can not afford.

PRIVATE hospitals are warning of nationwide cutbacks to chemotherapy services – and one of the nation’s largest regional cancer treatment centres faces closure – over a decision to slash federal government funding for chemotherapy drugs.

He said to recoup costs, private hospitals would have to charge patients about $100 extra a treatment. Some patients required several treatments a week.

“In the majority of cases, private hospitals won’t be able to pass those on to private patients because our contracts with health funds prevent that,” Mr Roff said.

He said the outcome would vary from hospital to hospital depending on how they were supplied. “Some hospitals will be able to continue providing service,” he said. “Some have indicated they will limit the types of services that are provided. Some have indicated they are looking at capping the number of treatments they provide to minimise the hospital’s financial exposure. And some have indicated that they have no option but to cease providing chemotherapy services altogether.”

A well managed, smart country balances priorities to maximize the health and well-being of it’s people. Throwing effort and money at frivolous, unsupported whimsies ultimately kills people. We may never be able to say exactly whose death could have been avoided, and there are valid questions about the effectiveness of some cancer treatments as well. But nothing about either of these decisions is based on a cost-benefit analysis and empirical evidence. That is the grand shame of it all. The same people who tell us we need insurance for the planet don’t realize that the “insurance” comes at a cost. The precautionary principle cuts both ways.

Me, if I was PM I’d be putting MRI’s into every town and city to find those cancers early while they are still cheap to treat.

————————————————————–

All posts about Renewables, and

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (77 votes cast)
Australia managed the mining boom so well we can't afford cancer treatments, 8.9 out of 10 based on 77 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/broy49y

89 comments to Australia managed the mining boom so well we can’t afford cancer treatments

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    If there are two things the Left/Green is good at, it is wasting other people’s money and disadvantaging or killing off the despised peasantry.

    Combining them is the height of Left/Green success.


    Report this

    181

  • #
    Winston

    Adlai Stevenson was apparently quoted upon visiting Australia that it was so rich in natural resources that a trained monkey could run it successfully. Clearly, Adlai hadn’t met Mr Swan and Ms Gillard (Queen Louie of Kipling fame perhaps?), monkeys obviously lacking in any formal training whatsoever.


    Report this

    230

    • #
      elva

      Adlai Stevenson was a very wise astute man of his time. He ran against Eisenhower in 1952. His quotes are well documented and repeated to this day. But I agree that while those who are so savage against our mineral mining don’t seem to realise how dependent we are now on it or are very ungrateful for it. The very same minerals are exported to be used in the production and importation of the ‘beaut’ wind towers and solar farms. Ironic.


      Report this

      120

    • #

      Re: Adlai Stevenson comment and Oz being so rich in natural resources. The left, greens and unions here in the US managed to do the same thing in California, turning an incredibly rich and resource gifted state into an economic basket case. Only took them 30 years to do it. Cheers -


      Report this

      60

  • #
    JMD

    A well managed, smart country balances priorities to maximize the health and well-being of it’s people…. Me, if I was PM

    Sounds like an election pitch. If you think you can do better, join the Liberal Party. Just remember fawning over John Howard is mandatory.


    Report this

    239

    • #
      cohenite

      Not just a stupid comment but a callous one; this government is sick; it’s treatment of cancer sufferers is a deliberate sacrifice of a small, deserving section of the community which nonetheless represents the general moral tone of this government; which is to say, it has none.

      As for doing better, the drover’s dog could do better; in fact no government would be better than this mob.

      I read comments by left supporters at various places and yours is typical; more concerned with your own ego than reality and completely indifferent to the plight of others.

      Anyone who continues to support this corrupt government is stupid or equally corrupt.


      Report this

      332

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        …moral tone…

        They got rid of morality first. Then anything can be justified or rationalized.

        Welcome to Secular Progressive Hell!

        I say that with great regret. But we are both in it now — up to our eyeballs in it. It will eventually end because it can’t sustain itself as Europe is now discovering. But enduring until the end will be tough.

        When morality starts to be in vogue again the recovery will start.


        Report this

        60

    • #
      Winston

      So,JMD, a few questions spring to mind- just to be clear about this-

      Do you think $1484.00 per ton of CO2 abated in S.A. is good value for money?

      Is $8.9 Billion for wind turbines a “sound investment” by your reckoning?

      If so, how much will this investment contribute toward Australia’s 24/7 baseload requirements- just a ballpark figure or percentage- any idea?

      And how much of the dreaded dangerous CO2 will this save from being released into the global atmosphere,taking into account manufacture, transport and installation of course?


      Report this

      160

    • #
      Crakar24

      JMD,

      States

      Sounds like an election pitch.

      Nah that aint no election pitch………….”There will be no carbon tax under a government i lead” now thats an election pitch.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Mark D.

    Good luck dealing with stupid. If you come up with a solution, please let us (in the USA) know.

    As I said, good luck.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    elva

    I too, have been concerned about this reversal of priorities in our ‘so-called’ developed nation. The other night I saw a report about how the Cochlea ear inventor was successfully trialling a bionic eye. But without future support from the government, which is threatened, the R & D may have to go overseas as so many of our brilliant ideas and people have had to.

    I don’t care if we had to produce 100% of its power from coal to 2100 as long as we could provide A-1 medical care. This would help those who suffer the predicted terrible results of AGW so bewailed by the alarmists.

    You would think they too would want the best treatment. Perhaps they are too young to ever dream of needing intensive medical care. Yet, that could and does change overnight for anyone of any age.

    Perhaps Australia has had it too lucky for too long, a la Donald Horne. People spend for all sorts of luxuries. But if they have to, as you point out, pay the equivalent of an iPad for every chemo therapy they might have second thoughts. Alas, too late then.


    Report this

    90

  • #

    In the first part of Joanne’s Post, there’s something really scary, and that is what MaGen says here:

    The Australian can also reveal that a new Frontier Economics analysis commissioned by Macquarie Generation has found that the renewable energy target could slash the value of coal-fired power stations by between $11.3bn and $17.3bn – potentially having a greater impact than the carbon tax, which includes industry compensation.

    MacGen actually wanted to upgrade to the new technology, and I can see that proposed upgrade becoming more and more distant now, as bean counters start to do their sums.

    MacGen owns Bayswater, and also the nearby Liddell plants, and no matter how far out into the future their contract to supply extends, there will come a time when it becomes not economically viable to keep the plant in operation. The CO2 Tax alone costs them upwards of $600 Million each year, and that will only increase. When the ETS comes into effect, and if it works as the current Government’s models say it will, that cost will only increase even further, and all of those costs will be passed directly down to all consumers, for all three sectors, Residential, Commerce and Industry, and here keep in mind that only part of the Residential sector gets any compensation. With those increased costs being passed on, and with the way the current Government spins it, you can imagine how much pressure there will be on coal fired power generators, even though their electricity is far and away the cheapest to generate. They will be seen as pariahs, and effectively painted that way by a Government with an agenda.

    Now, with political calls to lower the cost of electricity, there is further pressure on MacGen especially, because they supply such a large percentage of Eastern Australia’s electricity.

    Now, with this added renewable impost, then that cuts further into what those plants are actually worth as Capital Assets for the Company, as they have indicated in that statement above.

    Bean counters will inevitable tell MacGen that there will come a time when to go on will be less than break even. Then, when the plant is worthless, there is no point keeping it running, no matter how desperately the Government sinks money into it, as per the legislation to keep the plants running.

    That huge supplier of electricity will then just have to grind to a halt. Going on would be useless, and no one would buy it at any price, as it would be worthless, no matter how well it is still running.

    What happens then will indeed be anarchy, and as much as some of you think I’m scaremongering, there will indeed come that day.

    That $8.9 Billion sunk into wind power will then be seen for a monumental waste of money. Then, and only then will people begin to see that renewables are useless, and at that instantaneous point in time, it will be many years too late to do anything about it.

    Tony.


    Report this

    330

    • #
      cohenite

      How much MacGen pays under the despicable CO2 tax regime is moot; here it was thought it would be $580 mill PA. However, looking at the official NGER site for 2010-2011 MAGen would have a tax liability of:

      20524177 tonnes X $23 = ~$472 million.

      What are your calculations Tony?


      Report this

      70

      • #

        cohenite,

        again, like you, I find the hard truth difficult to come by, and that’s understandable. MacGen are never going to tell, and also, that is completely understandable.

        However, I have also mentioned that the costs are passed down directly to all consumers of electricity at all three sectors.

        That electricity is sold at the wholesale price and here is an image of how the cost per unit of electricity went up on Day One of the CO2 Tax. I can’t actually post an image here, so I’ll just have to link to the image to my own site.

        Electricity generation costs pre and post CO2 Tax

        Note how in every case for those 3 States that cost of actual generation more than doubled, and this is the day prior to and the actual day of introduction.

        Now, that is the wholesale price. The retail price changed by an average of 3.2 cents per KWH on that same day.

        Now, that was for the Residential sector only. With respect to the Commerce sector and the Industrial sector, they are on fixed contracts for electricity at a cost lower than for what residential householders pay. Those with existing contracts have those contracts for that price. New Commerce and Industry that comes into the market will now pay for new contracts at a new scale, which reflects the direct increase.

        Only (part of) the Residential sector receives part compensation which will stay the same until it is eaten away, keeping in mind that the generation costs rise each year as that CO2 price rises each new year.

        Those 2 sectors, Commerce and Industrial receive no compensation, and they will pass their increased costs directly down to all consumers, hidden increases not compensated for, because all emphasis is placed only on the compensation for electricity increases paid to part of that Residential sector only.

        Knowing that MacGen generates a similar power total each year, and while the MacGen site quotes 16,000GWH, some others put that total as high as 17,500GWH.

        MacGen mentions at their site that they consume (around) 7.5 Million tonnes of coal each year, and some sites say that could even be as high as 8.5 million tonnes, but I’ll go with their lower figure. At that 17.5 million tonnes and with the 2.86 multiplier, and at $23 per tonne, then that comes in at $493 Million, and then you can add on Liddell, around 5.5 Million tons of coal.

        So, figures can be many and varied for MacGen on an overall basis.

        Now, consider this, a long hot Summer, or a long Cold Winter. MacGen as the largest provider runs flat out because the power is needed. They could then considerably overshoot their allotment, and the overshoot and the penalty at 1.5 times that overshoot on top of that, and on top of that again, a reduction in the following years cap, none of those 3 able to be passed down to consumers. So now we see the stage where bean counters will calculate how much can be recovered and how much those overshoot costs will mean to them. It will get to the stage where no matter how much the grid (or Governments for that fact) call for more power, MacGen will just run their generators to the required amount, and the grid, and those governments can go get their power from the Wind and the Sun, which will never happen.

        Now perhaps you can see why the government included directly in the legislation financial assistance packages for large generating entities that may fall into hardship, because without that, MacGen and others will just shut down one of their generators and let them find power from those other sources, and here keep in mind that an entity like MacGen is emitting almost 60,000 tonnes of CO2 each day, hence a cost, just for the CO2 tax alone, of almost, and wait for this, ….. $1.4 Million a day. (or $350,000 per day for each of the 4 generators). So one days extra emissions will cost that much extra just for the CO2 Tax.

        You tell me what bean counters are going to say, and it’ll be along the lines of ….. take as long as you like with scheduled maintenance, and if that maintenance takes a little longer, then take as long as you like.

        You know what that means, especially in the middle of a hot Summer, or a cold Winter.

        Then think where that extra power has to come from, CO2 emitting Natural Gas plants who have also budgeted for their emissions with respect to what the Government has told them their cap is, or their impost. They are designed specifically to run for a few hours a day during Peak Power times of every day, so they will have to work longer meaning an increase in their already budgeted CO2 emissions, meaning a much higher cost to them for the CO2 Tax imposition, so you can imagine how much they will also be screaming.

        Grid controllers, and governments will be screaming down the phones at them, and then hot on the blower to Wind Plants asking if the wind is blowing yet because they need hundreds of Megawatts and they need them hours ago.

        See now how the CO2 Tax is not designed to lower emissions. It’s just to raise revenue, and huge amounts of it, paid for by me and you, consumers of electricity, and businesses, and shops, and malls and Industry, all places of work.

        Some will say that they don’t care what those derdy polluders have to pay.

        Wait until the power goes off and then see how how much those so called emitters of deadly pollution are relied upon for everyday life.

        MacGen can say what they like here, but the Government spin has won the day here I’m afraid. MacGen has been painted as not a provider of a staple of life, but as a foul disgusting blot on the landscape of our lives.

        I’m with MacGen here, and all I can do is explain what this means to them in ways that the average person can understand.

        There is no substitute for what they provide.

        Tony.

        [image added]ED


        Report this

        210

        • #

          I always quote Bayswater as my example for constancy. At no stage have I ever had any involvement with MacGen or any of the electrical power generating industry. I use them as an example only.

          Tony.


          Report this

          80

        • #
          cohenite

          Thanks; the wholesale price more than DOUBLED in each state in a day! Jesus H. Christ! I bet not all of that was passed on otherwise the consumers would finally have gone nuts instead of the slow simmer; what are the odds some sweetheart deals were given to allow places like MacGen to ‘absorb’ the extra cost rather than pass it on to the consumers?


          Report this

          40

          • #

            cohenite, and everyone else.

            In that Comment at 6.1.1 with the image of the power increases, I erroneously mentioned the rises in three States, and that should have been four States.

            Just to expand a little on that, I’ve mentioned it at another site, and again, the (expected) response was that this was a surreptitious addition of costs for (the dreaded) poles and wires snuck in to take advantage of the introduction of the CO2 Tax.

            You just have to laugh at the absolute ineptitude of such a comment.

            Poles and wires is the cost added on to power bills at the retail level, by providers of electrical power, say Ergon, Energex, Origin etc.

            What you see here is actual electrical power generation costs that the grid has to pay for the electricity it purchases, BEFORE it gets to the retail level.

            Note the costs are expressed in MWH, and the increases for each State all saw that power more than double in price. To convert from MWH to the normal KWH people see on their power bills, then that is a multiple of thousands. (eg WattHours, KWH, MWH, GWH, and TWH)

            So, that ORIGINAL cost say, for NSW of $30.75 per MWH equates to 3.075 cents per KWH. That is what the grid pays for its electricity. Now note the new NSW price of $66.11 per MWH, that equates to 6.611 cents per KWH, an increase of 3.56 cents per KWH, and you can do the conversions for the other States, all larger than NSW.

            At the retail end, where the consumer pays for his electricity, and for the Residential sector, those retailers raised their price by an average of 3.2 cents per KWH. (and all of those retailers published their new costing structures on the morning of the introduction of the CO2 Tax, that Sunday morning)

            At the same time, all retailers also published new costing structures for all of their new plans for the supply of electricity, in the Commerce and Industrial sectors, and while that just encompasses 2 sectors, there is anything up to 15 to 20 new plans, some for Residential, and a number of different plans for each of the other two sectors, depending on their usage, and which plan which better suits that business.

            Every one of those new plans showed increases in costs. Now, while the Residential plan only went up by an average of 3.2 cents per KWH, all those new Commerce and Industrial sector plans reflected their new prices to be much closer to what the Residential sector pays for their electricity, and that sector pays (far and away) the most for their electricity, and in fact some Industrial consumers were paying around half, some less, than what the retailers charged for residential power consumption. New contracts for those sectors raised the price, and in some cases raised them considerably, and now the price paid by all 3 sectors is relatively close, with the Residential sector still paying the most.

            What this does, in changing those Commerce and Industrial sector plans, is to allow the retailers to spread the added generation costs across all three sectors, allowing that Residential sector to reflect the more modest increase. Because, as shown in the image cost increases in Qld would reflect an increase of 3.702 cents per KWH at the retail level, Victoria 4.373 cents per KWH and SA 4.542 cents per KWH.

            I seriously doubt any sweetheart deals were done between wholesale and retail, as those generators just receive what that price indicates, and the retailers are the ones who have to find ways to absorb those increases, something they did with their new contracts across all sectors.

            Some may say that the price increases for generation shown in the image reflect all generation, and in fact that is the truth.

            What needs to be taken into context here is that CO2 emitting power generation in Australia makes up 90% of all electrical power generation, so as is now patently obvious all of that increase is as a direct result of the introduction of the CO2 Tax.

            Tony.

            Power generation Australia Data: Black Coal 52%, Brown Coal 23%. Natural Gas 15% for a total CO2 emitting sources of 90%. Hydro is 5%, Wind is 2% and Other is 3% made up mostly of Bagasse burning power plants at sugar refineries, and Solar comes into this other area, but is less than one tenth of one percent.

            Source: Energy In Australia 2012 (page 33)


            Report this

            50

          • #

            Now, for the sake of comparison, take out your most recent electrical power bill and look at the area that indicates the cost per KWH.

            Mine costs 23.071 cents per KWH.

            I’ll link to the chart for the costing structures for the U.S. and this lists Residential, Commerce and Industrial, and this is for the sake of comparison only.

            Note at the bottom, the average price per KWH that is paid across the U.S. as a whole is 11.91 cents per KWH, almost half what we pay here in Australia. Scroll that chart by State and you’ll see that no (Continental) State pays more than we do here in Oz, including those smaller States in the North East, States that pay considerably more as they have to import all their power from Other surrounding States. Also, note some States which pay in the single digits per KWH almost one third of what we pay.

            Now note the differential between what the Residential sector pays in comparison to Commerce (10.17 cents per KWH) and Industrial (6.74 cents per KWH) However, while the average Residential bill is around $1300 per year, the average Commercial bill is $8000 per year and the average Industrial bill is $90,000 per year, so you can see that while those other 2 sectors pay less, there are less consumers and they pay considerably higher overall power bills and the costing breakdown here in Oz would be similar.

            So, why is power so cheap in the U.S.

            Coal fired power is cheap, being generated for a cost around 3 cents per KWH. Nuclear Power costs around half that to generate and some entities sell their power for around 1 cent per KWH, so don’t ever tell me Nuclear power is expensive.

            Also, they have no CO2 Tax.

            So, when some Government spinner Minister tells you that electrical power is cheap in Australia, then that’s a crock.

            Tony.

            Link to U.S. electrical power costing structures for consumers (as of September 2012.


            Report this

            60

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          Tony, Thanks for the analyses. I’m worried by the many levels of organisations now present in the energy system, in a spectrum from from granting mining leases (State Govt) to reading or installing domestic meters (often outsourced). Depending on how you want to define involvement, and from my memory here, we have the Fed and State Govts and their various Departments involved; the quasi-government bodies like the Energy Regulator http://www.aer.gov.au/ which has its hand in both transmission and distribution; the COAG, which was used when the ALP had control in all States and Federally and among othere things, called for a large report that ended up with ‘mandated’ smart meters and post-normal methods of definition of ‘benefit’; the there are miners, the operators of poles and lines not included below, there are electricity plant owners/investors who might not always be the operators; there are producers like Jemena and distributors like United Energy. There are smart meter installers in their own names and meter readers ditto. The, departing from coal, we have groups like those under the Fed Dept of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency http://www.climatechange.gov.au/, there is the ACCC, The Foreign Investment Board people, the ATO of course, makers and users of windmills, ditto solar devices …….

          Overall, except when they are not structured for profit, each of these seeks to make a profit. In a cascading system, the profits compund until we get the equivalent of the $80 bolt for the USAF that made the news many years ago; that is, a profit at the bottom of the cascade that is derived from the movement of money and not really from the value of goods. Some of the above have profitability set by the Regulator, but that merely encourages greater employment of creative accountants.

          Profit on profit on profit until the taxpayer bleeds dry. What a shameful way to treat a loveley country. It was never so hard as this.

          Finally, there is the arrogance of most of those listed above, try writing a letter – you get a call back from a call centre guy who does not know enough to answer your questions. I asked one to respond in writing and got a letter back saying “It is not our policy to respond in writing”. So where is the rigour of the contract, the fairness of a negotiated outcome? Lawyers, is a contract enforceable when it has a clause like “We reserve the right to change anything we wish at any time that we wish so don’t bother asking for a fair deal.”


          Report this

          20

          • #
            cohenite

            “We reserve the right to change anything we wish at any time that we wish so don’t bother asking for a fair deal.”

            Look at your mortgage big guy, and weep.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      ianl8888

      @TonyfromOz

      As I noted in the previous thread, this issue is the Achilles Heel of the AGW meme. You have the threat to our power generation correct

      FYI, the Hazelwood plant in LaTrobe is on the brink now

      A further problem is the actual Exploration Licences and Mining Leases now being deliberately squeezed with political pressure from the Greens and associated groups. The raw/washed coal supply has to come from actual mineable deposits (something I had thought was so obvious that it was too stupid to mention it) but the Greens are attempting with increasing success to block the geological exploration needed to provide the data for economic planning. This is especially so in the Hunter, where Bayswater and Liddell have their supply base. The Greens have an unpublished policy of trying to make EL’s (exploration licences) too risky (sovereign risk) for initial investment capital. I know exactly whereof I speak

      No amount of lawyerly new regulations can move a physical deposit to some other place – the deposits are where they are. This is the real war zone


      Report this

      140

  • #
    gbees

    and at what cost to the environment and health? when are these costs ever factored in? they’re not … $8.9bn worth of wind turbine blades will certainly result in the deaths of countless birds and bats … apart from driving humans in the area batty ….


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Try this for the true environmental cost of wind power. There is now a huge toxic lake in China being created by the mining and processing of the rare earth minerals that are required for the manufacture of wind turbines.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    DaveA

    It’s not old bad news from the government, with the NBN in place doctors will be able to watch remote cancer patients die in high resolution.


    Report this

    262

  • #
    Rodrigues

    The politicians that brought us to this point ought to be either guilty of incompetence and thereby not fit to run the country or guilty of treason for letting their misguided idealism come before the welfare of their constituents. To my mind politicians should be more accountable in the eyes of the law but then how do we control the law except by way of our politicians?


    Report this

    70

  • #

    [...] Australia managed the mining boom so well we can’t afford cancer treatments Posted on November 21, 2012 by admin Jo Nova joannenova.com.au [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Renewable energy like wind power is a classic greenie/socialist cause.

    The first question to be asked is: “Does in work in theory?”

    If the suggestion/cause is trendy and greenie, the answer is always “Yes.”

    The more obvious questions of: “Does it work in practice?” and “Does it make any economic sense?” can then be safely ignored. Politicians do this everywhere, the UK is even worse than Australia – there, you could just not make up the crassness of the energy policy.

    Anyhow, shame on you for suggesting the interests of Chinese manufacturers are less important than those of Australian cancer patients.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    the Australian writes a critique of wind turbines, and at the same time runs this build-up to the UN climate talks in Doha later this month:

    21 Nov: Australian: AFP: Temperature targets unlikely to be met, UN World Meteorological Organisation says
    Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the single most important man-made contributor to climate change – rose to 390.9 parts per million in 2011, which is 2.0 ppm higher than in 2010, the WMO said…
    “Even if we were able to stop them tomorrow, these greenhouse gases will continue to have an effect for centuries,” Mr Jarraud said at the launch of the annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin report in Geneva.
    CO2 levels are at 140 per cent of the pre-industrial level before 1750, Mr Jarraud said. According to the WMO, about 375 billion tonnes of carbon have been released into the atmosphere as CO2 in the past 260 years.
    “These billions of tonnes of additional carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will remain there for centuries, causing our planet to warm further and impacting on all aspects of life on earth,” Mr Jarraud said in a statement.
    “Future emissions will only compound the situation,” he said.
    Taking the long view on data to smooth out year-on-year anomalies, the WMO showed that while carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased on average 1.5 ppm during the 1990s, the average annual hike from 2000 to 2010 stood at 2.0 ppm.
    “So it’s not just increasing, it’s increasing exponentially,” WMO scientific officer Oksana Tarasova told reporters…
    Mr Jarraud, meanwhile, pointed out that so-called “carbon sinks”, including oceans, have until now absorbed nearly half of the CO2 emitted by humans, but stressed that “this will not necessarily continue in the future.”…BLAH BLAH BLAH
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/temperature-targets-unlikely-to-be-met-un-world-meteorological-organisation-says/story-e6frg8y6-1226520961626


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Also, Australia managed its uraium resources and connected nuclear power industry that at the present time we still have no electrical power produced from nucelar reactors, we have a rapidly diminishing stock of engineers and scientsis who could manage a nuclear program and we have wise prognostications that it would take at least a decade to get Australia ready to start to build one.

    Here is reality. Here is China.
    ……………………

    CHINA is on track to become the world’s largest generator of nuclear power between now and some time in the 2020s, a senior Rio Tinto executive says.
    Rio Tinto Energy general manager of markets and industry analysis Stephen Wilson said China was now about the eighth or ninth largest nuclear energy producer.
    By the end of the decade, the emerging economic superpower was expected to leap to the number two position, Mr Wilson said, before overtaking the United States in the 2020s, producing 100 gigawatts of power.
    “Their vision is to produce 400 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050. That’s been publicly stated by Chinese officials,” Mr Wilson told the Australian Institute of Energy national conference in Sydney on Monday.
    “That’s more than the whole world has got today.”
    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/news/china-to-become-nuclear-number-one-rio/story-fnejlrpu-1226519612061#ixzz2CqTaZKzq
    ………………..

    Meanwhile, China’s other energy attracts comment as well -
    SYDNEY — China’s beleaguered solar panel makers took another hit this week, announcing either shipment downgrades or job cuts in response to global oversupply and higher production costs tied to recent import tariffs imposed by the U.S. government. Trina Solar, which has reported a loss for the last consecutive four quarters, slashed third-quarter guidance citing industry-wide oversupply …

    (1191 words by renewableenergyworld.com
    ………………….

    Australian politicians are spewing out spin like it was undetectable and true. Ho ho.


    Report this

    50

    • #

      Geoff says here:

      Their vision is to produce 400 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050.

      That’s four times what the U.S. currently has. The U.S. has 104 Reactors each driving one turbine/generator complex for a total Nameplate Capacity of a tad under 107,000MW (which is 107GW)

      Say, notice something there.

      104 reactors for 107,000MW. The average generator size for each reactor is 1000MW, huge generators, and utilising generator technology from the 70′s when the largest coal driven generators were around 600 to 700MW each. Currently only nuclear power can drive generators of that weight, oh unless you want to add in new technology coal fired power.

      Currently the largest generator capable to be driven by coal fired power here in Australia is Bayswater, and the generators at that complex are 70′s technology 660MW.

      So, for China, this means 400 reactors, and with 2 generators at each Plant, that’s 200 Nuclear Power Plants.

      Or 300 less large scale coal fired power plants, which means a yearly CO2 saving of around 5 Billion tons less of emitted CO2.

      Tony.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    pat

    TonyfromOz -

    don’t u know it’s all about contraction & convergence?
    here’s Andrew Dlugolecki/CRU insurance guy from 28Gate on the Beeb in 2000:

    23 Nov 2000: BBC: Climate treaty ‘almost irrelevant’
    By BBC News Online’s environment correspondent Alex Kirby in The Hague
    As the UN climate conference here inches towards a deal, a UK expert has said it is going nowhere fast.
    He is Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, director of general insurance development at CGNU, one of the world’s six largest insurance groups…
    Dr Dlugolecki has contributed to the report due out early in 2001 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the group of several thousand scientists whose findings have prompted governments to take the issue so seriously…
    Dr Dlugolecki told BBC News Online the European storms of December 1999 and the terrible wet weather in the UK over recent weeks were just two examples of what could happen.
    “Both are absolutely typical of what we should expect. And I think we’ll also get some surprises. Remember how Auckland in New Zealand was affected during a heatwave – the central district lost power for six weeks.”
    He said: “There’s no way we can prevent things getting worse for at least the next 40 or 50 years. But we can prevent them getting far worse.”…
    “We meet the oil companies privately,” he said.
    ***”They know the oil is going to run out in 30 or 40 years. We will steer our investments in the future towards firms which are energy companies, not oil companies.” …
    ***He said a concept known as contraction and convergence “has the potential to break the deadlock”.
    Radical approach
    It is an idea promoted by a small London-based group, the Global Commons Institute.
    It argues that while global emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas caused by human activities, must be reduced drastically, everyone in the world should have an equal right to use the fuels which emit carbon.
    That would mean reducing the amount of pollution caused by people in countries like the US and the UK by a huge amount, and allowing a corresponding rise to the people of developing countries.
    The idea is so radical it is not even on the agenda at the climate conference. But it has some influential supporters.
    The latest convert appears to be President Jacques Chirac, who told the conference on Monday:
    “France proposes that we set as our ultimate objective the convergence of per capita emissions.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1037152.stm

    Wikipedia: Contraction and Convergence
    Contraction and Convergence (C&C) is a proposed global framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. Conceived by the Global Commons Institute [GCI] in the early 1990s, the Contraction and Convergence strategy consists of reducing overall emissions of greenhouse gases to a safe level (contraction), resulting from every country bringing its emissions per capita to a level which is equal for all countries. It is intended to form the basis of an international agreement which will reduce carbon dioxide emissions to avoid dangerous climate change, carbon dioxide being the gas that is primarily responsible for changes in the greenhouse effect on Earth. It is expressed as a simple mathematical formula…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraction_and_Convergence

    Wikipedia: Global Commons Institute
    The Global Commons Institute was founded in the United Kingdom in 1990 by Aubrey Meyer and others to campaign for a fair way to tackle climate change.
    It has in particular promoted the model of Contraction and Convergence of CO2 emissions as a means to tackle climate change. Many of the founders and signatories to the first statement in favour of contraction and convergence were members of the Green Party…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Commons_Institute

    Wikipedia: Aubrey Meyer
    Aubrey Meyer is an author, climate campaigner and composer. he is also a former member of the Green Party.
    He co-founded the Global Commons Institute in 1990.
    Born in Yorkshire in 1947. Raised in Cape Town, South Africa from 1952…
    At the request of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1992, Meyer conceived and presented his analysis of ‘The Unequal Use of the Global Commons’ to the Policy Working Group of the IPCC. This was dubbed ‘Expansion and Divergence’ and, led to a decisive international rejection, at the UN climate negotiations in 1995, of the global cost benefit analysis of climate change by some economists from the US and UK whose methods depended on the unequal valuation of human lives lost due to climate change in industrialised countries, compared to those lost in developing countries: – http://www.gci.org.uk/economists.html
    This led to the development of GCI’s framework of ‘Contraction & Convergence’ (C&C). Introduced at the UNFCCC in 1996…
    This overall effort has led to many awards: – http://www.gci.org.uk/awards.html
    and in 2008 a cross party group of British MPs nominated Meyer for the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize: – http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/NObel_Nomination_APPGCC.pdf
    On 24 June 2009, Rajendra Pachauri, (Chairman of the IPCC) said the following (see http://www.tangentfilms.com/WTCApromo.wmv): “ When one looks at the kinds of reductions that would be required globally, the only means for doing so is to ensure that there’s contraction and convergence, and I think there’s growing acceptance of this reality…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_Meyer


    Report this

    10

  • #
    handjive

    Here is an edited version of an article that appeared in the TweedCoastWeekly, 18 October 2012, page 6.

    .

    On December 1st, 2012, the federal GreenLaboUr government of Julia Gillard will end the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, started by Tony Abbott when he was health minister which has helped countless people with chronic dental disease.

    Eighty percent of patients under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme are concession card holders and they are being shoved out into the cold by this decision.

    Because of this budget cut, patients with cancer, heart conditions diabetes and other chronic diseases with major dental problems will be dumped onto public dental waiting lists.

    The Gillard Green Government has said it will replace the Scheme with a more ‘limited’ program, but that won’t start for adults until July 2014—which is a 19-month wait

    If you have ever had a tooth ache, you know you can’t wait 19 hours, let alone 19-months.

    And if you already have cancer, a heart condition, diabetes or a major health issue, a failure to treat your teeth can have major health implications.

    And the news is little better for sick children using the Scheme – they will have to wait 13-months until January 2014 and will have their benefit cut from $4250 to $1000 over two years.

    The 19-month gap is dreadful news for people with chronic disease on low incomes.

    For everyone else who can’t afford major dental treatment, this is a body blow with serious health impacts.

    .


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    make no mistake, we are being groomed:

    21 Nov: Sky News: Election blocking GST reform- Oakeshott
    Both Mr Oakeshott and fellow independent Tony Windsor have called for a review of the GST despite Labor and the coalition declaring changes to the consumption tax off limits – especially a year out from a general election….
    http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=818774

    20 Nov: Aust Financial Review: GST review promised to me, says Oakeshott
    http://www.afr.com/p/national/gst_review_promised_to_me_says_oakeshott_GzxcTJuOvIin9x7PmANKZM


    Report this

    10

  • #
    warcroft

    If Labor abolish cancer treatment it will be much harder to remove this cancerous government from power. They want to live on, the rot growing in size until the host nation shrivels up and dies.


    Report this

    52

    • #
      angry

      This “red dog” communist “government” is a CANCER that is eating Australia from the inside.

      They must be excised for the survival of the host !


      Report this

      32

  • #
    observa

    And don’t forget the other Labor/Green brainfarts-
    The desalination plant will cost Victorians $24 billion over 28 years through higher water bills
    And in the windmill State, naturally SA Labor did its level best to achieve the same outcome as their Big V cousins.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    if I was PM I’d be putting MRI’s into every town and city to find those cancers early while they are still cheap to treat.

    Oh what a shot in the arm for radiology clinics! Warmists rejoice!
    She’s denied claims of being funded by Big Oil.
    She’s denied claims of being funded by Big Coal.
    But one little slip of the tongue and now the truth is out! JN is secretly funded by… Big Rad!

    Hahaha. Sorry, it was such a cheap shot I had to get it before the warmists did. :)

    Actually Jo, I would have thought with your free market tendencies that you’d lean towards abolishing Medicare registration of MRI machines and Medicare rebates for registered machines? By subsidising a handful of MRIs, (which by the way are assigned to government gerrymandered “catchment” zones) it cuts the operating costs for the owners of the Medicare registered machines so much that new entrants without a Medicare-subsidised machine are effectively priced out of competition, leading to government semi-control of the amount of healthcare available.
    Which of course limits MRI supply artificially and keeps scan prices high for everyone!

    Isn’t cryptofascism great!

    National defence, health care, and education are the three areas Australians seem to want government to provide the most. So it’s not a clear cut thing for a democracy.
    Anyhow, that’s a serious question if you want to lend your thoughts on this thorny issue.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Winston

      I agree Andrew,
      MRI scans are comparable even now in cost (about $170-250 per region) to CT scans ($120-180 pre region) for many diagnostic applications, some of which indications being where MRI has a distinct improved clarity over CT. There is a horrendous amount of duplication caused through forcing GPs (because patients cant afford the test) to use less diagnostic investigations first, only to then have to refer for the correct test via a specialist referral because that is the only way to gain Medicare rebate. Only this month have GPs been able to refer in any circumstances, and now only for strict criteria (which is fine I might add) and only for children under 16. Of note is that MRI generate zero radiation compared with CT and Xray.

      Imagine the number of Xrays and CTs avoided if MRI/MRAs were rebatable for clearly specified indications like knee injury (the only imaging that can diagnose meniscal tears and cruciate damage- hence also avoiding unnecessary arthroscopies), Brain and cord to diagnose MS and subtle CVA’s etc where CT lacks discrimination.There is no justification for limitin there availability, at least for some clearly advantageous indications, as it would save more money than it would cost.

      Just a little anecdote- 48 yo patient comes to me with unusual pain behind R eye- suggestive of sinusitis but inconsistencies in her story set alarm bells- CT performed shows alleged meningioma (benign tumour of the meninges) wrapped around her internal carotid artery. I wasn’t happy with that report, even though I discussed with radiologist by phone and he appeared certain on evidence of CT. So I rang around the coast to various radiology practices, intercepted the patient in transit and convinced them to part with $250 they could ill afford in order to have an MRA- sure enough she had a leaking aneurysm, which was subsequently stented in Sydney the next day, saving her life. Had I just been able to refer for the appropriate test in the first place, none of the rigmarole would have been necessary. It could so easily have been left in the too hard basket, and the original report had been accepted, that relatively young woman would have died prematurely and unnecessarily.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        As the referring doctor, do you ever look at the MRA (or MRI) images acquired by the radiographer after the radiologist has done the initial diagnosis?

        If not, why not?
        If so, what are you looking for, what software do you use, and is there anything you wish it did that it doesn’t do?

        I ask partially out of personal interest but mainly because I have a business connection to such matters.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Winston

          Absolutely, don’t trust the report without checking myself. Can actually view images and reports over the net via Dicom Viewer or Intellinet, or directly off the films or the disc on the drive on the computer. The access via the net has the advantage of scrolling through images and a macro viewer for close up magnification of small areas of the film of interest. This technology is relatively recent and is a great step forward compared to previous hard copy films.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Oh, and great comment by the way.

        I think the only part we agreed about was that MRI machines are effectively limited in availability unnecessarily. However we seem to disagree on the solution.
        The difference is politics, and in this area I just can’t get as uppity about the politics as in other manifestations of the Left/Right dichotomy, because in the communist solution people get quality of life preserved by high tech medicine, and in the laissez faire solution more people get quality of life preserved by high tech medicine. :) But it’s a win either way.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    North American colleagues are paying 8c to 9c kwh for domestic electricity.
    I am paying 30c.
    Given the same 3 to 4 fold differential for industry, there won’t be much industry left in Australia (apart from basket weaving and criminal law).
    Maybe it’s time to think about a move.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Shevva

    Actually they don’t give a fig who dies, they just want to make sure that the few tax cows/worker drones left only use renewable energy.

    Google Gordon Brown’s or Tony Blair’s current jobs to see what Gillard is lining up for herself. Can you spell UN.


    Report this

    61

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Australia needs to get out of the UN.

      We urgently need a referendum.

      If this gets through then, and only then, would I agree to another referendum on the question of a Republic.

      Most Australians rightly perceived that the Republic issue was an irrelevance.

      Why shackle yourself even more to unresponsive and thieving Government when the real issue is Basic Management of the Country and abuse of power while in government.

      KK :) .


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Catamon

    On the other hand, if you want an alternative to the somewhat emotive and pretty blatant spin of the OP.

    So looks more like its business as usual managing the PBS with a bit more transparency being required from the pharmacists. As this drug Docetaxel comes off patent there will be a replacement with cheaper generics unless the price falls. Situation utterly normal.

    But hey, including “we cant afford cancer treatments” in the title is a nice catchy hook to feed a sense of outrage in the easily led isn’t it?


    Report this

    015

    • #
      Otter

      Did it ever occur to [snip] like you, that they COULD afford cancer treatments, if the government just STOPPED wasting billions on something that won’t even affect the climate in either direction?


      Report this

      120

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        But Otter, since the Earth stopped warming the only heat they can get is from under the collars of people who realise they are being ripped off.

        Seriously though Catamon has, for once, a point, or perhaps half a point because he didn’t think further. The pharmacists are just “rent seeking” as a former Labor PM put it. Why not, given this government’s behaviour towards other less deserving causes? The problem for the Labor Party is that they are rapidly becoming connected with big rises in the cost of living. So far their inner city based core with their government paid jobs can’t see any problem, but their votes are concentrated in a few traditionally Labor seats. Those outer suburban seats where Labor was once dominant are steadily falling to the (current) opposition. When they gain power and start reducing the flow of funds, the screams of outrage will be deafening but ignored.

        Perhaps then we can get a more rational debate on reducing CO2 emissions. The Greens have completely lost sight of this objective, by espousing methods which do little to reduce CO2, and much to increase the cost of electricity. Since nuclear is not a practical choice in Australia at the moment, the only sure methods of reducing CO2 are gas (closed cycle) and coal fired. Replacing our existing black coal fired power stations with current technology would reduce emissions from 960 to 760kg per MWh. Even further reductions are in the planning stages. (And work out for yourself the advantages of switching 1260-1300 brown coal to black coal).

        The use of wind turbines with their unstable delivery ‘balanced’ by open cycle GT gives higher costs for a derisory reduction in overall CO2 emissions. As noted above, it is an expensive way of achieving little.

        I haven’t touched on whether CO2 reductions are necessary, just pointed out that the current approach is ineffective, expensive and quite stupid as a means of reducing emissions. If, on the other hand you want to force up living cost then admit it.


        Report this

        90

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        He doesn’t appear to think that far in front of his nose, Otter. His cause is all he sees.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Crakar24

        You mean like using telstra 4G here in Adelaide rather than waiting another 7 years to go the NBN, you may have a point Otter


        Report this

        40

    • #
      angry

      The “Catamon” traitor rears its ugly head yet again……..


      Report this

      72

      • #
        Catamon

        Really Angry aren’t you? So, traitor to what exactly? In your opinion what group of which i acknowledge being a part am i betraying, and exactly how?

        And no Angry, simply having a different opinion on any particular matter than you do does not make me a “traitor”. come up with something more rational that that rant boy.


        Report this

        02

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      What was that drug?

      TaxTheDocile?

      KK :)


      Report this

      51

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Sorry

        Getting confused.

        Catamongst’s drug was “Docetaxel”.

        KK:)


        Report this

        32

        • #
          stogy

          So let me get this straight… private hospitals have been charging ripoff rates (margins of up to 75%) on this drug) that they claim to use in order to cross-subsidize other services. To me, it sounds like a private industry rorting of taxpayers money. And then threatening to close or dump 20,000 patients into the public system or close as a form of blackmailing the government into dropping the plan.

          The government wants to end this rorting, and has a plan to do so… but because of the money they are spending on the wind turbines… no wait, I can’t get this straightened out at all.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    Bill

    JoNova or anyone else,

    This is slightly off topic but is related to one of the “related stories” links at bottom of this post.

    WHen they talk about fossil fuel “subsidies” which are really just tax breaks or write-offs or other things
    in the U.S. tax code, does anyone know what percent of this is due to things that ANY company or corporation
    can take advantage of? As opposed to special loopholes/credits written so that mainly fossil fuel companies can
    take advantage of?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I have never before seen such a determined attempt by anyone to prove themselves wrong.

    Australia or U.S., there’s no difference that I can see. The light of day has been shut out by intent.

    I wonder who will save us.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Mark

      I wonder who will save us.

      Don’t think they’ve been born yet, Roy.
      .


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        If the example of the Roman Empire is realistic it may take hundreds of years for the iron grip of one world government to decay enough for any chance to restart.

        On the other hand, the Soviet Union lasted less than a century. But when it broke down the result wasn’t so good either.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Ross

    A question for JMD and co. Is this what you guys are really after ?

    http://e360.yale.edu/feature/un_climate_chief_christiana_figueres_talks_making_progress_on_eve_of_doha/2593/#.UK05kQ6CU1g.twitter

    A sample of what is being said :

    It is the most inspiring job in the world because what we are doing here is we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science. So it’s a very, very different transformation and one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.

    It reminds me of Mao and Stalin


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Not only this,

    MORE than $8.9 billion will be spent importing wind turbines because of the blowout in the Gillard government’s renewable energy target

    Now Darren Gladman, policy officer with the Clean Energy Council wants to protect all the existing solar panels with new town planning laws. How much will this cost?

    So if you want to build next to a building with solar panels – then think again. A new hospital may have to be moved so Mr. & Mrs. Greenie can still get full sunlight from dawn to dusk on their subsidised little 1.5Kw system. :(

    There’s no end to this madness.


    Report this

    40

    • #

      Bonkers. From the article:

      ”How would you calculate that? If you look at it over a 20-year residential site or even a 50-year life cycle of a house, that adds up to an enormous amount,” he said.

      It adds near-enough nothing at all after the first 20 years. Cell degradation. PV solar cells degrade when exposed to sunlight. Faster when they’re hot and supplying lots of current. They wear out. After 20 years in the sun, PV cells can be considered to be e-waste, requiring special disposal.

      In the first 20 years, unless the panels are mounted on mechanisms that physically track the sun (and alternatively maximise white-sky radiation when heavily overcast), there is very little electricity generated in the hours more than 4 hours either side of (solar) noon. Not only is the incoming sunlight attenuated by a longer path through the atmosphere (containing aerosols and dust), the angle of incidence is disadvantageous because the typical grid-connected PV system is installed to yield maximum in-feed revenue for the whole year; so will “point” at the sun around the middle (±1 hour) of a summer’s day. On top of the geometric factor of orientation, there’s an increase in reflections of insolation from the surfaces; the exterior and interior ones of the glass encapsulating the PV cells and the surface of the cells themselves.

      It gets worse if there’s dust on the surface of the panels because the shading area of the dust particles increases when the sun is not exactly perpendicular to the surface of the PV panel.

      Perversely, the IR components of sunlight will heat the PV cells quickly, before the higher-energy light is able to produce substantial current flow. The hotter the cells, the greater the freedom for electrons to “fall” back the wrong way. Cell efficiency decreases. The PV cells and panels are rated at (IIRC) 20°C. 60°C could easily be reached under the Australian midday, summer sun. As a rule of thumb, output decreases by 1% for every 2°C above 20°C. (Performance varies depending on cell type and how much current is drawn at a particular temperature.) Not many installers appear to care about that, often mounting PV panels in such a way that frustrates natural, convective cooling.

      Why it doesn’t matter to them is because they get paid the same, regardless of actual performance. RET-based certificates are based on notional performance calculated from nameplate output (remember, that’s at 20°C, when new) and the location of the installation (not the orientation).


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Hasbeen

    Perhaps the strangest thing in all this is that Labor are coming back in the polls.

    Just what does that say for the reasoning power of the Oz population in general?


    Report this

    31

    • #
      angry

      The polls are absolute BS.

      The only poll that counts is the one on election day.

      The “red dog” communist gillard “government” will be judged by the Australian public and be found seriously wanting……..


      Report this

      21

    • #
      Catamon

      Just what does that say for the reasoning power of the Oz population in general?

      That its in better shape than the polls 3 months ago suggested would be the obvious take out from that. :)


      Report this

      03

    • #
      Bulldust

      It suggests that a proportion of the population was moved, ridiculous as it sounds to rational people, by the misogynist rant. The better poll was the one which rated faith in Federal politics at an all time low.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Cuts to chemotherapy will have little effect..

    Conclusion: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival.
    To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required. Morgan, G. et al. (2004). Clinical Oncology
    16, 549e560
    2004 The Royal College of Radiologists.

    http://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/contribution-of-chemotherapy-to-five-year-survival-rate-morgan.pdf


    Report this

    22

  • #
    pat

    Ross -
    that yale interview should be a new thread. unbelievable.

    and the faclitators come from right across the political spectrum. damn them.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Ross

      Pat —I saw your comment on Bishop Hill. That was where I first saw it so I should have added that to my post.
      Yes , I agree this is serious and really highlights what Chris Monckton first picked up prior to Copenhagen.
      But are all those who are so serious about the science going to sit back and let their science effectively be “prostituted” by the UN game players. I will bet anything, none them will speak up against it.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “PRIVATE hospitals are warning of nationwide cutbacks to chemotherapy services – and one of the nation’s largest regional cancer treatment centres faces closure – over a decision to slash federal government funding for chemotherapy drugs.”

    Jo I can see the sense in your financial argument. But the problem is that chemotherapy … and modern cancer treatment more generally, is ALSO junk science. Its incredible just how much junk science is out there. As someone who is powerfully impressed by your tenacity, data sourcing skills, and commitment to logic … [snip]

    Insofar as chemotherapy works after a fashion, its only because they tend to use poisons that are ALKALOIDS. But you could do a superior job with alkaloids that weren’t poisons. Even to the extent that cancer treatments based on modern-medieval ideology ….. even to the extent that they can do the job they represent A GLASS KEY. A glass key (as in the famous Hammett novel) unlocks the vault. But it does so at the expense of breaking the key itself. All modern cancer treatments that are ideologically-based are CARCINOGENIC. The chemotherapy poisons are carcinogenic. The radiation is carcinogenic. The surgery is carcinogenic because it releases the cancer cells, safely contained in the tumor ….. cutting releases these cells to migrate to the rest of the body. These three ideological treatments represent medieval trials, or medieval treatments. We have the sword, fire and poison. Applying chemotherapy is conspiracy to poison the patient. Radiation is trial by fire. Surgery, in this instance, is resorting to the sword to expiate sins.

    [snip]

    —————————–

    Graeme, I have seen what Chemo does — both the good and the bad. It has probably saved two lives close to me, but I’m very aware it’s bucket-medicine, not something you’d wish on anyone, and that’s exactly why I want us to put more money in to MRI screening, and into better kinder smarter customized cancer treatments. We should be putting money into cancer research instead of windmills. . – Jo


    Report this

    11

    • #
      Bulldust

      I have no doubt that chemo will soon seem as sophisticated as leeches were in the olde days. Plenty of good biotech will replace these practices soon (by that I mean in the next few years to couple decades). For example:

      http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2012/11/17/one-biotech-ring-to-rule-them-all.aspx

      I many here don’t buy the whole accelerating rate of tech change paradigm, but sorry, you have your eyes closed or you can’t see the bigger picture.

      I have read of many more breakthroughs than the few mentioned in this article. The technology is advancing rapidly on many fronts. Shame that we aren’t spending more on research such as this instead of BS like Lewandowsky’s tirade against ‘deniers.’


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Mark

        Bulldust, I recall watching a program within the last year where a molecular biologist synthesised a compound from a Chinese plant.

        The patient had large tumours in his lungs and was on borrowed time. It took about three months but then the scans showed the tumours dissolving from the inside out. The patient suffered none of the awful side-effects of chemo.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Bulldust

          The lifespan of the current generation ought to be a lot longer than any previously. You don’t have to go back very far in human history to get to a time where even residents of “affluent” countries had a life expectancy less than that of some of the least developed countries today. Gapminder has good videos on the improving health statistics:

          http://www.gapminder.org/videos/


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Bulldust

    So how long before Big Oil, yes, Big Oil, pushes Obama to introduce at ETS in the US?

    http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/casey_research/archive/2012/11/21/is-a-carbon-tax-a-done-deal-for-the-us.aspx

    And the meme that Exxon supports ‘evil deniers’ somehow persists… oh the irony…


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Hardly news Bulldust. Obama has wanted cap-and-trade for years. He’ll get some form of it eventually. I just wonder if the House of Representatives will hold on and stop it. And if they do, for how long?


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    George

    Govt spending on research / waste or otherwise on alternative power.
    Govt. not spending money on medical research to prolong human life.
    Govt. not having the money to assist people ,pensions etc ,
    So , better to not prolong life because we can’t afford to keep a bigger population especially if we are allowing uneducated , unqualified , welfare dependant people into this country.\
    Only so many snouts can be in the Tax payer funded trough.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gai

    Jo,
    My Mom (& Dad) had cancer. We were told while in Germany in 1975 that there was a blood test for cancer. When we got back to the USA Mom asked her Doctor about the blood test. The reply was Yes there is a blood test but it doesn’t tell where the cancer is so it is useless.

    An Accurate Blood Test For Cancer

    There is now a blood test that will accurately detect early cancer of all types. It has an accuracy of greater than 95%. If the test is repeated, the accuracy is greater than 99%. That is to say, that false positive and false negative rates are less than 1%. The test is called AMAS.

    Twenty-one years ago a neurochemist, Samuel Bogoch, M.D., Ph.D., discovered a test for cancer antigen,…

    Seems this should be used at anual check-ups on anyone who has cancer in the family, smokes, (they pay for it) works in high risk environments, ( company pays for it) is a female over the age of 25 or male over the age of 40 Cancer incidence by age


    Report this

    00

  • #